The interviewer asked Kelly why he considered the Black Death the greatest tragedy in Western history:

Was it the greatest tragedy in Western history? One of your back-cover blurbers said as much. What about the Holocaust for instance?

Kelly answered as follows:

Yes, the plague was. According to one recent estimate, extrapolated to today’s world population, the death rate for a disaster on the scale of the Black Death would be 1.9 billion lives.
An estimated 50 million people died in WW II, ten million in WW I, and perhaps somewhere between 50 to 100 million in the flu outbreak of 1918-20.

Asked whether there might be another disaster on the scale of the Black Death and what might bring it about, Kelly stated the following:

Yes, I think there could be, but by an agent other than plague. It could be either a thermonuclear or biological weapon, or, alternately, a strain of flu — such as Avian flu — which we don’t really understand and don’t know how effective our medications will be against.

In an earlier blog, I had mentioned that the only man-made horror that could equal or surpass the Black Death in terms of proportional continent-wide or worldwide mortality is one that, although it remains possible to this day, never happened and will hopefully never happen – a global thermonuclear war.

Now I'm concerned that, with an aggressive Russia, an expanding China, and an unpredictablecretin in the White House, the world may soon be headed in that direction.

"Donald Trump's election victory has resulted in near panic among elite and liberal circles. Some weeping neo-Cons claim this moment marks 'the end of the West'. It is more like the end of them.

It is not the 'end of the West' but the end of a cycle of ill-conceived overseas interventions and fifteen years of incessant war, and the dawn of a harder edged attitude to America's friends, 'frenemies' and foes alike. [...]

Trump knows that Russia is both economically floundering, and a proud nation. Perhaps he can strike the right balance in handling that tricky combination better than Obama, and certainly better than Clinton who was squaring up for a fight with the truculent Russian. [...]

Generally speaking, a reduced American involvement in global affairs would be a positive development if it meant a less militarised foreign policy.

US military action in Syria was definitely on the cards with Clinton. She is a tricky individual but she was so desperate to seem virtuous and humanitarian that she would very probably have gone down that route.

The neo-Cons had flocked to the Hillary camp, and were getting ready to extend the 15 years of wars we have already had by imposing a no-fly zone in Syria, which would have meant direct conflict with the Russians.

So on one level, Trump's victory is a defeat for the war party in America."

What I wonder is what will happen to American Jews now. No, Trump won't do "anuddauh shoa",but his election is win for the alt-right, and maybe a proof that the were right wjhen claiming they used to be a silent majority, and not a looney minority. Hurting Jews on a private level might become more common, and holocaust denial as well - perhaps to the point it will become the official US goverment's position.

«For all the praise Trump is getting for an alleged softer stance on Russia, no one's talking about his tougher stance on China.»

The "softer stance on Russia" is not necessarily a good thing. It may encourage Putin to go even further than he has so far, and the day may come when Trump has the choice between humiliation and the use of massive force. Which will he choose then?

Well, if it is true that Trump is influenced by Putin, you know the answer to that.

It completely fits with the Pattern of Putin et al sponsoring far right movements throughout Europe. Hungary for example. Some idiots complain about the EU's admittedly lackluster response to the refugee crisis and praise Putin, while ignoring the fact that the xenophobic rhetoric against refugees is being stoked by the far right parties Putin is backing. It's like the entire world is starting to descend to the level of Holocaust Deniers...

6. Instruct the U.S. Trade Representative to bring trade cases against China, both in this country and at the WTO. China's unfair subsidy behavior is prohibited by the terms of its entrance to the WTO.

7. Use every lawful presidential power to remedy trade disputes if China does not stop its illegal activities, including its theft of American trade secrets - including the application of tariffs consistent with Section 201 and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.

-CONTRAST WITH HILLARY CLINTON

Hillary supported Bill Clinton’s NAFTA, [b]she supported China’s entrance into the World Trade Organization[/b], she supported the job-killing trade deal with South Korea, and she supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership. -

Trump also wants to expand the US miltary, with particular emphasis on Cruisers designed to counter (China Backed) North Korea.

Say what you will about Clinton and Obama's military policies, but Trump and Co's own points about Clinton and China shows that she knows what she's doing when it comes to them. They know that a naval war or whatever in the region is bad for everyone involved: bad for the states, bad for China, and bad for everyone living here. That's why they didn't commit too much in terms of military force in the face of Chinese landgrabbing. Business goes first.Not so for Trump. By all accounts he'll burn the house down.

Roberto, I avoided commenting on this US election because it was like Alien (Hillary) x Predator (Trump), with the Predator you can dialogue, with the Alien there's no dialogue, Alien wants to kill you anyway.

I understand the progressive people in US voting for her, but in Brazil (you know about the coup against the country) both she and Obama are seen as mentors of the coup and are rejected by big sectors in Brazilian Left (The deposed government was center-left, Dilma). Historically the Democrats are worse for the country than the Republicans, ironically.

About Trump (the "charather" he does), he seems to me a boaster, womanizer, a casino owner, fits into the liberal American tradition, if he were abstemious and 'strange' as a certain Austrian corporal (Adolf), I would really be afraid of him.

Praising Trump for "bringing peace" is like praising Chamberlain for the same.

Hillary is of course not a warmonger in any shape or form, she is for *resisting* and defanging neofascist warmongers like Putin. If the Sex-predator-in-chief continues being Putin's puppet, this will only encourage the dictator to continue his war against Ukraine and to star new wars on the former Soviet territory.

It's not a good idea a war against Russia with a serious risk of a nuclear mushroom. This is not a compliment to Trump or Putin but this way of dealing with conflicts like Hillary deals is assisted suicide. The world of Soviet decline (1991) and US rise (1990s) no longer exists, the power of the world is migrating to Asia (China).

The invasion in Ukraine was only possible due to the imbeciles of the far-right that Obama's government urged to take a coup against Ukraine, without this ridiculous operation Ukraine would have the same territory until now, any gratuitous aggression of Putin in that time would have been condemned by the world and he would not have legitimacy to attack.

As for Ukraine, that's Putin's moronic conspiratorial propaganda regurgitated by the far-left and far-right "useful idiots". The uprising against Yanukovich by the Ukrainian people was caused by his and his accomplices' actions, no one else. The US has not urged for any coup and was not in control of the situation (although it tried to influence it during the deal-brokering, as any superpower would). There is zero evidence of any "operation" and all of this aside, Putin did not have any legitimacy to attack with or without a coup, to follow Hitler's path in annexing the Crimea and then ruining much of Donbass, causing thousands of deaths all only to reinforce his power.

If there is a war with Russia, it could only be caused by the warmongering dictator drunken on Russian nationalism. Barking up the wrong tree.

And now the probability of further wars waged by Putin has increased thanks to all the sociopaths who have voted for the Putin-appeasing Pussygrabber-in-chief and useless good-for-nothings that stayed home and did not bother to vote.

Hillary is of course not a warmonger in any shape or form, she is for *resisting* and defanging neofascist warmongers like Putin. If the Sex-predator-in-chief continues being Putin's puppet, this will only encourage the dictator to continue his war against Ukraine and to star new wars on the former Soviet territory.

Did you write that bit about Clinton with a straight face?

"Top Pentagon officials and a senior Democrat in Congress so distrusted Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2011 march to war in Libya that they opened their own diplomatic channels with the Gadhafi regime in an effort to halt the escalating crisis, according to secret audio recordings recovered from Tripoli.

The tapes, reviewed by The Washington Times and authenticated by the participants, chronicle U.S. officials’ unfiltered conversations with Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s son and a top Libyan leader, including criticisms that Mrs. Clinton had developed tunnel vision and led the U.S. into an unnecessary war without adequately weighing the intelligence community’s concerns. [...]

Mrs. Clinton’s main argument was that Gadhafi was about to engage in a genocide against civilians in Benghazi, where the rebels held their center of power. But defense intelligence officials could not corroborate those concerns and in fact assessed that Gadhafi was unlikely to risk world outrage by inflicting mass casualties, officials told The Times. As a result, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, strongly opposed Mrs. Clinton’s recommendation to use force.

If Mrs. Clinton runs for president next year, her style of leadership as it relates to foreign policy will be viewed through the one war that she personally championed as secretary of state. Among the key questions every candidate faces is how they will assess U.S. intelligence and solicit the advice of the military leadership.

Numerous U.S. officials interviewed by The Times confirmed that Mrs. Clinton, and not Mr. Obama, led the charge to use NATO military force to unseat Gadhafi as Libya’s leader and that she repeatedly dismissed the warnings offered by career military and intelligence officials."

The same goes for what Trump's campaign revealed about his personality. It's simply dangerous to have a character like that with his finger on the button, especially if you consider that, even with more level-headed individuals controlling nuclear arsenals, things could have gone wrong on a number of occasions (remember Stanislav Petrov and Operation Able Archer, to name but two).

Trump certainly doesn't hedge like a politician. Even footballers handle themselves better in hostile interviews, thanks to their media training.

Trump essentially said the same thing my country's PM said back in July 2016:

George Kerevan Scottish National PartyI congratulate the Prime Minister on her new role, but let us cut to the chase: is she personally prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill 100,000 innocent men, women and children?

Theresa May The Prime MinisterYes. The whole point of a deterrent is that our enemies need to know that we would be prepared to use it, unlike the suggestion that we could have a nuclear deterrent but not actually be willing to use it, which seemed to come from the Labour Front Bench.

The Left-wing media predictably whipped up a shitstorm by twisting her words; one example: "Theresa May says she would kill '100,000 men, women and children' with a nuclear bomb" [Independent, 18.7.16]

The precisely the same thing is currently being done to Trump.

As for your sources: I can't access your WP link but it's claims are probably as comical as the WP's journalist Jonathan Capehart who started crying on British TV last night when asked about Trump's victory; the Time article includes that ridiculous claim from an unnamed "expert" which Trump's staff denied he ever said, and none of its other quotes backs your case; the NS article outright lies in its final sentence; and the Huff-Post article is merely a short rant citing a single *source*, that being an image-hosting website on which a "talented" lady uploaded some Cold War propaganda posters she'd photoshopped to include Trump's name!

There is a genuine reason to be fearful of Trump's foreign policies, but it's one many of his detractors would actually fully support. Trump may well rip-up the nuclear deal with Iran that he constantly derided throughout his campaign. He could also be persuaded by the neo-cons—who are currently slimeing their way over to him—that Iran requires regime change and the US should grab their oil and gas or face losing dominance in the region to Russia and China. Were he to go down that path, China can't stand back an watch the US launch a war that would even temporarily shut-off the substantial part of its oil-supply that travels through the Strait of Hormuz—which Iran knows is its ace card—let alone allow the US to make a play that would have a permanent detrimental effect on China.

«the Time article includes that ridiculous claim from an unnamed "expert" which Trump's staff denied he ever said»

It does, but with the due qualifier that the statement is alleged and was denied by Trump’s campaign spokeswoman.

«and none of its other quotes backs your case»

My case being that Trump's stance on nuclear proliferation (addressed in more detail in the Washington Post article) is one of the reasons that make him dangerous, I don’t think so.

«the NS article outright lies in its final sentence»

It doesn’t reproduce Trump’s exact words, but arguably grasps the meaning thereof. Is there anything else in that article that you think is wrong?

«the Huff-Post article is merely a short rant citing a single *source*, that being an image-hosting website on which a "talented" lady uploaded some Cold War propaganda posters she'd photoshopped to include Trump's name»

Which wouldn’t matter much as it was posted to show that other people share my concern, but you missed this assessment (which the Huff-Post article links to) by Bruce G. Blair, nuclear security expert, research scholar at the Program on Science and Global Security at Princeton and co-founder of Global Zero, whose arguments include the following: “As far as Trump’s expressed policy views are concerned, there is precious little grist for concern, let alone alarm. Something else is worrying people, and it is not hard to put your finger on it: his character and personality—his tendency to see only one image, in black or white, in a Rorschach collage, to rush to an absolute judgment on the basis of ambiguous or mixed evidence, to vilify the motives and evil-doing of foreign hands, to divide the world into winners and losers, and to castigate people with whom he disagrees, perhaps including advisers offering a different or more nuanced opinion. These are the sorts of habits of Trump’s mind and emotional reflexes that lie at the heart of fear that a President Trump would be more prone than his predecessors to angrily order up a nuclear strike.[…]It is one thing to stand tall, talk tough and press for advantage in hardball negotiations. It is another to stoke embers with excessive bluster and overreaction in nuclear war preparations. To keep a lid on nuclear brinksmanship during a crisis, Trump would have to keep open lines of communications, listen closely to the other side’s positions and demands, clarify and enforce one’s own red lines, negotiate in good faith, keep promises, contain emotions, refrain from insults, and not lie. It means understanding that overplaying one’s hand and provoking rapid escalation could end in disaster. It means knowing the adversary, its capabilities and limitations, and knowing oneself even better. Suppress your temptation to spew vitriol. Dragging an adversary into court and suing also is not an option. The playing field is not a courtroom. One cannot litigate a solution to a nuclear crisis. Resolution requires a deft diplomatic hand. It demands astuteness, fairness and acceptance in finding and shaping a compromise.It is not clear that Trump is up to the task. It is no more clear that his unnamed future advisers, successors and generals would be up to it. Trump certainly has not yet made a convincing case that we could sleep soundly with him at the helm.”

Clinton is not nearly a warmongerer in the same way as Scooter Libby and Douglas Fieth. She rather was an opportunist who attached herself to any cause that she thought would advance her brand. Still better that Trump The Russian Puppet.

Trump is the most unqualified and ignorant President in American history and he has by far the most questionable loyalties and allegiances.

I think this is not a syndrome but a conviction that she and her husband are harmful people.

I remember the puppet government they put in many countries of South America (in Brazil, Argentina and other countries, with FHC = Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Menem) in the Bill Clinton era in a collusion with the local elites, the humiliation we had and the current coup that was planned in the Obama administration (NSA, BRICS, Petrobras, pre-Salt http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-25/brazil-senate-votes-to-reduce-petrobras-role-in-deepwater-fieldshttp://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Brazil-Approves-Handing-Pre-Salt-Oil-Reserves-to-Multinationals-20160912-0035.htmlhttp://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2016/06/20/why-brazils-petrobras-should-privatize-its-pre-salt-assets/)

So I avoided commenting on US elections because my opinion about Clintons is the worst possible but I understand people in US voting her. This is not a defense of Trump, Trump was elected upon the american people rejection to her and her husband, and also because she has liquidated Sanders' candidacy (sabotaged), people should ask these questions instead of the alarmism. Her defeat has clear explanations, she has defeated by herself, by the noxious campaign she did and by the destruction of the serious Democrat candidate (Bernie Sanders). This isn't propaganda of "far-left" or "far-right", I have witnessed these facts and I am witnessing the current coup that nobody knows how it will end.

Yanukovich was not good, but there's something called elections to remove someone bad and this was not what they did in Ukraine, there was a coup, an attack against the fragile democracy of that country by obscure forces. How "prosperity" is going on in Ukraine post-coup?

Putin has no legitimacy to attack, but Ukraine is a Russian area of influence (border), as Cuba is for the US, any movement of NATO or anti-Russian groups provokes some reaction from the Russian government. Having legitimacy or not, this coup gave him (Putin) condition to attack and catch the Crimea (with ethnic Russian majority). This was only possible due to the coup, without the coup any Putin attack would be rejected by the whole world. If any country puts missiles in Cuba or Puerto Rico (US borders) there'll be a reaction from the US government, with legitimacy or not, this is realpolitik (this has happened once in the Cuban Missile Crisis, the same is happening with Russia and the siege of NATO).

"If there is a war with Russia, it could only be caused by the warmongering dictator drunken on Russian nationalism. Barking up the wrong tree."

Not only for him but also has caused by this madwoman while she has been head of the state department and the current Obama administration, which has a foreign policy disaster (equal or worse than W. Bush).

Russia's power of attack is limited (by conventional warfare, but it's strong), but if confronted in areas of influence, Russia will retaliate, so, knowing it you think is 'not a bad idea' to provoke Putin thinking he'll stop with US intimidation having nuclear weapons? We have an idealist.

We are no longer in the Cold War, there's no more Soviet Union, there's a clash of economic blocs like in the First World War but now with nuclear weapons and high technology, and the power of the world migrating to Asia. What's happening is the multipolar world is something real and Trump apparently accepts this fact (the absolute US power after the collapse of the USSR is over), Hillary doesn't accept it and wanted more war as that one she did against Assad with "moderate jihadists" who created the Islamic State.

Reducing any discussion of Trump's victory to his xenophobic discourses (to get votes from Rednecks and from the proletarianised american middle class due to the crisis/neoliberalism, it was an Machiavellian thing but it worked with a disgusting opponent candidate, Trump is too part of a liberal American business tradition, not from a European Fascist tradition), or Hitler, becomes a kind of escape.

Sanders would have beaten Trump, if there's anything to mourn that's the real reason, not the defeat of that psychopath.

> I think this is not a syndrome but a conviction that she and her husband are harmful people.

A conviction based on nothing.

> I remember the puppet government they put in many countries of South America

None of your links contain the word "Clinton"...

> we had and the current coup that was planned in the Obama administration

... or evidence of this assertion.

> because my opinion about Clintons is the worst possible

Hence: Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

> Trump was elected upon the american people rejection to her and her husband,

Actually more than one million voted for her over Trump. Only the outdated undemocratic system prevented Clinton's win.

> and also because she has liquidated Sanders' candidacy (sabotaged)

She won fair and square over the old coot, nobody has sabotaged anything, that's mere propaganda.

> by the noxious campaign she did

One of the cleanest campaigns in my memory. Hence: Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

> and by the destruction of the serious Democrat candidate (Bernie Sanders)

You call a clear democratic choice (especially by minorities) a "destruction". Tells me everything I need to know.

> This isn't propaganda of "far-left" or "far-right",

It is pure propaganda.

> I have witnessed these facts

Rather, you have read them in some socialist rag or at Wikileaks.

> Yanukovich was not good, but there's something called elections to remove someone bad

Yanukovich escaped to Russia, the Parliament impeached him, end of story.

> and this was not what they did in Ukraine, there was a coup

There was a popular uprising against a criminal President who used violence on his people.

> How "prosperity" is going on in Ukraine post-coup?

Sorry, is prosperity guaranteed after any civil uprising? Even with the fascist neighbor starting a war against you, draining your resources and killing your people? Stop watching Russia Today, because you sure sound like a typical Russian troll with this turn of phrase.

> but Ukraine is a Russian area of influence

Ukraine is its own state that can decide to do whatever it wants, and certainly to defend itself against its fascist neighbor.

> any movement of NATO or anti-Russian groups provokes some reaction from the Russian government.

So you care about the feelings of a fascist government. Clear.

> This was only possible due to the coup, without the coup

There was an interim government selected by the elected Parliament and then a democratic election. Seems like the best solution in the situation when a corrupt, criminal President uses violence on his people.

> this is realpolitik

A leftist accepting the right-wing "realpolitik", LOL.

> also has caused by this madwoman

Hence: Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

> while she has been head of the state department and the current Obama administration, which has a foreign policy disaster (equal or worse than W. Bush).

What a load of bull.

> Russia's power of attack is limited (by conventional warfare, but it's strong), but if confronted in areas of influence, Russia will retaliate, so, knowing it you think is 'not a bad idea' to provoke Putin thinking he'll stop with US intimidation having nuclear weapons? We have an idealist.

So your solution is to appease a fascist dictator. Sorry, I have no use for appeasers of fascists, leftist or rightist.

Because those links are to show one of the things that motivated the attack here (there are more reasons), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-spying-brazil-oil-petrobrashttps://theintercept.com/2015/07/04/nsa-top-brazilian-political-and-financial-targets-wikileaks/http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/16/brazil-nsa-spying-surveillance-economy-dilma-rousseff-barack-obama/

Guess who was Secretary of State for 4 years (until 2012)?

"... or evidence of this assertion."

This part is more difficult (for now...) because who does a coup don't tell to all who'd done it, but there's no perfect crime. There are many traces about who struck here, as in 1964, the groups are the same (FIESP, Globo TV or Goebbels TV, Media etc), the support is equal, the interests also indicate who "won" with the coup. I don't believe in coincidence (or in so many coincidences).

If this serves as consolation (to show it's not so easy to prove all involvements for now), until recently there are those who's denied the participation of the US government in the 1964 coup (planned and executed by Democrats), but finally there are a lot of documentation recently has released about it (to bury the doubts of the "skeptics"). More than 30 years to confirm what many people has always been known. Since the Second War the presence of the US government in the region is total, who denies this presence in coups in the region does it for ideological motivation only. Even the native Right-Wing can't (and doesn't) deny these facts.

This is about the coup of 1964, see the year when they released documents (some documents, others were released later)http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB118/

There's an exemplary documentary about this coup (1964) that sheds light on what is happening today, "The day that lasted 21 years" ("O dia que durou 21 anos"), as it has no subtitles in English on Youtube, I don't think it will serve much, but Roberto (Muehlenkamp) understands Portuguese (in case someone wants to see the movie). Trailer:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zElDJ1f3Jk0In Portuguese and English (some parts):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrfzJIN7Zb0

This is Glenn Greenwald (Pulitzer Prize, the guy with contact with E. Snowden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald#Contact_with_Edward_Snowden), he's saying the same thing I said above. I think he isn't "nothing" too:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uVkRg3bHSE

This is not "Clinton Derangement Syndrome", this is your hatred about Putin blinding you about these questions.

I don't question anyone likes (or not) Putin, I don't think he's a "Saint" (as I don't think it about Obama, Hillary etc), but this hatred can not blind a person to the point of defending unconditionally a genocidal hoping her to go to war against Russia to overthrow the "Evil Fascist Dictator" as in the Second World War (the present world is much more complex, with nuclear weapons, high technology and suicide jihadists ready for anything).

"Actually more than one million voted for her over Trump. Only the outdated undemocratic system prevented Clinton's win.

She and the Democrats accepted this voting system. If this is undemocratic why did they accept it? They can modify it instead of complaining, if they had won there would be no people saying it.

In fact this voting system of "states" (a Federal system) is more democratic than some direct elections, which may have distortions in voting with populous states voting (as happpens here with Sao Paulo State distorting the voting system).

"She won fair and square over the old coot, nobody has sabotaged anything, that's mere propaganda."

Read the text of the NY Times above. I followed whole American election, even because Globo TV (or how we call her "Goebbels TV", the Dictatorship Evil TV of 1964 and the TV 2016 Coup) has showed everything about this election with its support (and cheer) to Hillary. As this ridiculous scene of Carolina Cimenti (Poor Carol! hahaha, the Globo "journalist") in 27 sec.:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s2MSSsjw_E

She says hating Trump: "Puta que pariu" (Something like this: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=puta%20que%20pariu), this election provoked many laughs with the suffering of the Globo group (hehehe).

"It is pure propaganda."

I disagree = propaganda. I used several newspapers known above (none of them are from Left), but it's "all propaganda".

"Rather, you have read them in some socialist rag or at Wikileaks.

I'm not a Socialist, properly, but I'm a leftist. PT (Workers Party) is closer to British Labour or the German SPD. Many people of the Far Left (by sectarianism and childishness) call the PT as a Right-wing Party. Many of your comments resemble very much a Far-Left Party (Trotskyist) here called PSOL (who hates the PT).

"Yanukovich escaped to Russia, the Parliament impeached him, end of story.

Through a Coup. If they wanted to depose him, there are elections for this. It's something even simpler, they would vote against him and put whoever they wanted in the power, not being able to have external contestation/attack.

"There was a popular uprising against a criminal President who used violence on his people."

"Popular uprising" also used violence against people and there were several neo-Nazis in it. This is BBC matter about it, I think BBC does not like Putin very much, but it can not deny this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SBo0akeDMY

"Sorry, is prosperity guaranteed after any civil uprising?"

Why do they do a "popular uprising" to change the government without a bigger reason? To change the regime and something that goes bad in the economy. Ukrainian nationalist forces took advantage of the dissatisfaction to attack.

"Even with the fascist neighbor starting a war against you, draining your resources and killing your people? Stop watching Russia Today, because you sure sound like a typical Russian troll with this turn of phrase."

Which war was there before that? Problems between Russia and Ukraine that could be resolved with negotiations?

Are you Ukrainian, if are you it's possible to understand the reason for so much partisanship in the matter.

It's clear that you don't like Putin (and I did not defend Putin, that's the problem in this whole discussion, I have a different view of the problem than you), but if someone wants to change something in Russia, do internal politics and change the government. Cheering for Hillary's victory to "lay down a fascist dictator" in Russia is a stance that borders on extremism.

"Ukraine is its own state that can decide to do whatever it wants, and certainly to defend itself against its fascist neighbor."

In theory everything may sound beautiful, but in practice Ukraine is a Russia's neighbor and has to find a solution to deal with the problem even because Russia will not leave that region. This is realpolitik.

"So you care about the feelings of a fascist government. Clear."

I think whoever is closest to the fascists here in this discussion is not me, but you, like the fascists who struck here in my country. They think pretty much like you.

"There was an interim government selected by the elected Parliament and then a democratic election. Seems like the best solution in the situation when a corrupt, criminal President uses violence on his people."

Here there's the same thing, except that Dilma did not use violence against the "people" (Fascists are not the people, those Fascist 'paulistas' are not Brazil), everything "within the law" (and illegitimate). This is a new type of coup, welcome to the 21st century.

"A leftist accepting the right-wing "realpolitik", LOL."

Roosevelt and Churchill were very different from Stalin and made an alliance. W. Bush had good relations with the Lula's government, they are not alike but this is only external issues. Democrats are not Left-wing (in a European vision, the European political vision/division is followed in Brazil, Right-wing = conservatives, liberals, Left-wing = Labourites, socialists etc).

"So your solution is to appease a fascist dictator. Sorry, I have no use for appeasers of fascists, leftist or rightist."

I have no use for war candidate apologists moved by political hatred. Not even the Democrats think good things about Hillary.

The summary of this discussion here is simple: Sergey hates Putin (this is your right), but does not tolerate any opinion he considers can benefit Putin by "ignoring" Russian warpower (he thinks he can get over it).

I will no longer discuss this, we have different views on this issue and neither will you change what I think nor do I want to change what you think about Putin (or Hillary?). It's pretty annoying when someone hints that someone is lying about for being "far-left", "propaganda" etc, this is not a discussion about Holocaust denial, it's not so simple to discuss this kind of political issue (a current and open discussion) reducing everything to "I'm fighting a Fascist Dictator".

Look at the two, how they're in love, lol, a "almost"-US President talking to a Fascist like that: http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/full/public/2016/11/02/clinton-putin.jpghttp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/06/vladimir-putin-on-hillary-clinton-better-not-to-argue-with-women/

calling Hillary an Alien that wants to kill you:"Roberto, I avoided commenting on this US election because it was like Alien (Hillary) x Predator (Trump), with the Predator you can dialogue, with the Alien there's no dialogue, Alien wants to kill you anyway."

making a deranged claim that Clinton would lead to a nuclear war with Russia:"It's not a good idea a war against Russia with a serious risk of a nuclear mushroom."

making a false claim about her sabotaging Sanders:"because she has liquidated Sanders' candidacy (sabotaged)""by the destruction of the serious Democrat candidate (Bernie Sanders)"

calling Clinton a "madwoman" and a "psychopath":"also has caused by this madwoman""not the defeat of that psychopath."

Ayep. You have a serious and probably irreversible case of the Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

> this is your hatred about Putin blinding you about these questions.

No more so than my hatred of Hitler makes me blind about anything WWII-related.

So far you've been making demonstrably false claims, not me.

> but this hatred can not blind a person to the point of defending unconditionally a genocidal hoping her to go to war against Russia to overthrow the "Evil Fascist Dictator" as in the Second World War

And since nobody here has called for that, you're barking up the wrong tree, once again blinded by the CDS.The point has always been that a) if a war were caused, it would be caused by Putin, not anyone in the US, b) the idea that Clinton's policies would cause a war with Russia is preposterous and is a result of irrational hatred.

> She and the Democrats accepted this voting system

You're trying to change the topic from your claim that this was a rejection of Clinton to whether the system was accepted.Nobody claims that it wasn't accepted. But it being an outdated, undemocratic system makes it a poor indicator of whether this or that candidate was popularly rejected. IOW, Trump winning under this system is not the same as the people symbolically rejecting Clinton (which was your claim).With 1.5 million (and counting) votes more than Trump the voters have not rejected Clinton. That's the point. Is it really so hard to understand?(There was her rejection by one particular group that stands out: the racist whites. "Choose your side carefully", one could say.)

> NY Times "propaganda", lol:

NYT does not say what you want it to say. Namely, it says nothing about Clinton sabotaging or liquidating Sanders' campaign. DNC officials privately mocking Sanders does not somehow erase the absolutely fair and crushing win by Hillary in the primaries by millions of votes.Once again you provide a link that is wholly irrelevant to the point you make. And claim not to have the CDS.

"So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers.Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is A-OK. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation for it—a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out.Then there’s the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped. You can just see the words “environmental racist” on Republican billboards. And if you can’t, I already did. They were in the Republican opposition research book as a proposal on how to frame the nuclear waste issue.Also on the list: Sanders violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for, and he voted against the Amber Alert system. His pitch for universal health care would have been used against him too, since it was tried in his home state of Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs. Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, “Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die,’’ while President Daniel Ortega condemned “state terrorism” by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was “patriotic.”The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.Could Sanders still have won? Well, Trump won, so anything is possible. But Sanders supporters puffing up their chests as they arrogantly declare Trump would have definitely lost against their candidate deserve to be ignored."

> Read the text of the NY Times above.

Maybe you should. Because you clearly did not understand what it said.As such, my point stands. You have an extremely distorted view of the primaries (not to mention of Clinton herself).

> I used several newspapers known above (none of them are from Left), but it's "all propaganda".

You used them to do what? To simply post them? OK, you did. What then? Because links you post simply don't support what you claim.You claimed that Clinton liquidated, sabotaged and destroyed Sanders, whereas she did no such thing and Clinton's win was the will of the actual Democratic voters (notably, minorities) made after they heard both sides. DNC being pro-Clinton doesn't change anything.

Dude, when a criminal govt *already* uses violence on its people, elections aren't an immediate solution that is gonna stop the violence. That's such a naive and shortsighted view of things. He pushed violently, got a correspondingly violent pushback and escaped. Since he was no longer realistically able to perform his presidential duties, he was deposed and after a period of time there was a democratic election. Maybe not the most optimal solution overall, but there was no other in that particular situation.The whole thing started with the govt thugs beating up peaceful protesters. Without that there wouldn't have been anything, the protests were already slowly dying out. But once it did start, it led to a chain reaction. *That* was the cause of the Ukrainian situation, not the mythical plans by wily Obama.

> "Popular uprising" also used violence against people

It's pretty hard to have an uprising without violence. The root cause of all this, however, was the govt violence.

> and there were several neo-Nazis in it.

I am well aware of this, probably much more than you, with concrete names and facts. Where nationalism is, sadly, still a big force, some participation was inevitable. And the new govt was more cozy with some of the neo-Nazis (like Azov) than they had a right to. Certainly one of their big mistakes. That said, it no more makes the Ukr. Rev. "fascist" (if one listens to the Russian agitprop) than it is "Jewish" because of the participation of several prominent Jews (like Kolomoysky) or because Ukraine has its first Jewish premier now. (Of course, if you read the Russian "anti-fascist" twitter, the Ukr.Rev. actually *was* Jewish, with all the leaders, incl. Poroshenko, being secret Jews. "Valtsman" is the usual (allegedly his crypto-Jewish) name the websites of the so-called "Novorossiya" apply to Poroshenko.)I am also aware of how many neo-Nazis and other neofascists there were (and are) on the Russian side of the conflict, starting with the likes of Strelkov, Gubarev, Milchakov, and the whole brigades of the Russian National Unity with their swastikas.Not to mention that the very system Putin is building in Russia is neofascist (whether you define it as palingenetic ultranationalism (in its state, rather than ethnic form) or use Eco's 14 features, most of which apply, in one form or another, to Russia under Putin). That the puppet "republics" of LNR and DNR are little neofascist dictatorships requires no further comment.

> Why do they do a "popular uprising" to change the government without a bigger reason?

Did you write that seriously? Um. That shows how much you know about the Ukrainian situation. *eyeroll*

> Which war was there before that?

The one that Putin started by putting his "green men" first in Crimea (even denying them at first, but then admitting a year after the annexation), then sponsoring the separatists and/or terrorists in several eastern Ukrainian regions (beginning with the Russian citizen, "former" FSB man Strelkov), then simply sending his army (while still denying that he did, like in the case of Crimea)?You think this kind of a war wouldn't have any effect on the country's economy?

> Problems between Russia and Ukraine that could be resolved with negotiations?

Well, maybe you should ask Putin why he started the war instead of holding any negotiations?

> Are you Ukrainian, if are you it's possible to understand the reason for so much partisanship in the matter.

No, I'm a Russian (ask Nick, we've met personally several times). I just lived under Putin long enough to write what I do with full, fact-based conviction.(And currently I live outside of Russia, hence I actually *can* write what I do. I would think 10 times before writing the above if I were still there. You can very easily go to prison for this nowadays.)

> but if someone wants to change something in Russia, do internal politics and change the government

Dude. It's like you're living under a rock. Wake up. Russia is a de facto dictatorship.The "elections" are sham both in that they're falsified, and in that 99% of TV is state-controlled and is pushing Putin 100% of time, 110% during the elections. (And yes, TV absolutely dominates the informational field, even with the access to the internet - which is now being censored anyway, to boot.)What can you change "democratically" in a non-democratic system? Could you "democratically" give Stalin a boot?Your understanding of Russia is on par with your understanding of Ukraine, I'm afraid.

> In theory everything may sound beautiful, but in practice Ukraine is a Russia's neighbor and has to find a solution to deal with the problem even because Russia will not leave that region. This is realpolitik.

In practice no country has a right to attack its neighbors for no good reason, and if it does, it should suffer consequences.

> I think whoever is closest to the fascists here in this discussion is not me, but you, like the fascists who struck here in my country. They think pretty much like you.

So far, your protestations notwithstanding, you have de facto defended Putin, which qualifies as a fascist apologia, and Trump, which is somewhere in the vicinity.Unlike you, I have not defended any fascists. I'm simply pushing back against your sliminig of decent people based on falsehoods and irrational hatred.

> I have no use for war candidate apologists moved by political hatred.

She's a war candidate only in the fevered imaginations of various dudebros with the Clinton Derangement Syndrome who have no idea what they're talking about.

> The summary of this discussion here is simple:

It is indeed. And it doesn't have much to do with the difference in political opinion, but rather with verifiable facts.

You know squat about the situations in Russia and Ukraine, you believe every falsehood you read about Clinton and on that shaky basis of falsehoods, innuendo and ignorance you build your "worldview". Sad!

”Oh please, anything from O'Keefe is automatically ignored, anyone quoting O'Keefe as a credible source belongs on a mental blacklist. Not to mention that we were discussing the primary election.”

Why is he not a credible source?

Yes you might not like him or is opinions, but the film material speak for itself.

”There were some nationalists taking part, among many ordinary citizens. Your attempt at lying is noted.”

Svoboda and the Right sector where the leading and dominating fighting part, who lead the revolution.

”The "elections" are sham both in that they're falsified, and in that 99% of TV is state-controlled and is pushing Putin 100% of time, 110% during the elections. (And yes, TV absolutely dominates the informational field, even with the access to the internet - which is now being censored anyway, to boot.)”

Oh, and the ”american” media is not controlled by Clinton, or pro-Clinton and Jews? They where all pushing Clinton 100 % in the election and yes they control and dominates the informational field. They could not believe that trump won. Many of the people saw through their lies.

I don't have syndrome about Hillary Clinton, but you have a syndrome about Putin and all people you think who 'supports' him. This is the real reason for these "questionnaires". It's as if someone has committed a crime for not liking Clinton (and she lost the election).

If I hated her as you say I would have made many critical comments to her during the election, but in respect to whoever votes for her I avoided commenting earlier. Even having another view of this process I understand the internal reasons of the left-leaning voters to vote for her within the US (fear of Trump and the media hysterical coverage of the election, American Trade Unions often vote for Democrats etc).

Let me show again:http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-history-with-arming-syrian-rebels/"Syrian rebels", but we can call them "jihadists", this is the correct word and this is something not "nothing". This 'euphemism' ("moderated rebels") of the media is very funny, it's like the Western media coverage of the Taliban in the war against the USSR.

400,000 people dead are 'something'. She should not have run in this election but rather respond for crimes against humanity in the court of The Hague.

"Now you give me three more links that are about *spying* but have nothing to do with your wild claims about Clinton or Obama admin planning an anti-Roussef coup."

Clinton is ('was', she lost the election, lol) part of the Coup, that's the main trouble between her and me, but not the only one, the neoliberal mandate of her husband was a dreadful thing and only in these decades beginning to be felt in the US (the proletarianization of the American middle class explains the rejection of her figure, Wall Street, globalization etc).

I have the right not to like her (many people think the same way, including many people who voted for her for fear of Trump), this has nothing to do with Putin, my mind doesn't spin around the belly button of the president of Russia, you don't even know what I think of Putin to make these questions.

I'm not a Putin fan, admitting that nuclear wars (or even conventional warfare) are dangerous with a warmonger like Clinton doesn't make me a fan of him either. You want to attack him anyway forgetting the side effect of these attacks to the other countries and shows why the opposition in Russia has no force against him. You will never move him from power supporting people as Clinton.

"Of course, because these claims are pulled out of someone's ass. And quoting the 1964 coup as proof of something about today is just......Just as I said, empty conspiracy theories without any evidence, based on "gut feelings"."

Labeling everything for "conspiracy theory" does not help much in this kind of discussion, this is a current and open discussion, not a discussion where one side is openly reprehensible (deniers). You don't like Trump (it's your right), but your implication here in this discussion is because I criticized your "Muse" (Clinton) and you don't admit any criticism of her disqualifing any article placed (from the NY Times, BBC and others). It's all "propaganda", this is a dishonest statement. It's not possible to have a serious discussion with a fanatical Clinton defense like this.

A Pulitzer Winner is 'nothing' (hehehe), it's the first time I see a Clinton supporter so fanatic, nor her fans are so excited about her figure anymore, a lot of them are Sanders voters that voted her for fear of Trump, these people don't like her too.

"calling Hillary an Alien that wants to kill you:"Roberto, I avoided commenting on this US election because it was like Alien (Hillary) x Predator (Trump), with the Predator you can dialogue, with the Alien there's no dialogue, Alien wants to kill you anyway.""

I used a metaphor with the name of the movie to say these two candidates are horrible, but she is worse than him (for me). Next time I'll telegraph before. More people thought of the same title: "Alien vs. Predator"http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/20160515_elect.jpg

"making a deranged claim that Clinton would lead to a nuclear war with Russia:"It's not a good idea a war against Russia with a serious risk of a nuclear mushroom.""

Clinton fanaticism and warmongering, destroying everything to achieve any goal, could lead to a nuclear war with Russia, that's the reason so many people feared she would win (Trump is a billionaire, to spend money he needs a planet, rich as he is usually pragmatic, people like him are less dangerous on these issues than an ideological one like Clinton).

I can't trust too in a woman who is married to her husband (by appearance) for power and status after being publicly humiliated due a sexual scandal at the White House. You don't want to accept she's lost because she's terrible, no matter what Trump stands for (and by economic issues cited).

"making a false claim about her sabotaging Sanders:"because she has liquidated Sanders' candidacy (sabotaged)""by the destruction of the serious Democrat candidate (Bernie Sanders)""

It's not a false accusation because she hadn't denied it when it would be simple to prove this is false. Sanders did not come to her defense. She doesn't have many friends ...

"calling Clinton a "madwoman" and a "psychopath":"also has caused by this madwoman""not the defeat of that psychopath.""

"Psychopathy, sometimes also known as sociopathy, is traditionally defined as a personality disorder[1] characterized by persistent antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited, egotistical traits."(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy)

She's a Psychopathy and Genocidal. That's what I think of her, these terms are not about you.

"Ayep. You have a serious and probably irreversible case of the Clinton Derangement Syndrome."

I have no syndrome about Clinton, conviction is not a syndrome, but you've got syndrome about Putin to the point of defending this crazy woman due to your Putin's aversion.

"No more so than my hatred of Hitler makes me blind about anything WWII-related."

Your hatred about Putin is visible, but this is not my trouble, I did not defend Putin in my first comment but you consider who doesn't like Clinton is defending Putin, that's the real trouble here. You're wrong about these associations ignoring what happens in other countries provoked by her. I quoted the nuclear issue but my biggest impression of her does not come from this issue.

Putin didn't start the war in Ukraine, the morons supported by the American government (Obama) provoked it ignoring the military power of the neighbor. How Putin is not stupid he took advantage of the situation (this was a consequence of the coup in Ukraine).

What it's funnier in this "discussion" is that your candidate was the one who gave to Putin more power, if you hate him so much you should hate her for it.

In the reign of H. Clinton and Obama, Putin acquired more power in Russia using the idea of the "external enemy" and the sanctions against Russia, you are defending who else gave power to whom you hate because you think Trump will be a "friend" of Putin. Trump will defend his country first, not Russia, regardless of what he said in the campaign.

"So far you've been making demonstrably false claims, not me.

Of course, the only thing you have done so far has been to deny and make empty accusations, "everything is propaganda" (as NY Times, BBC, Intercept etc).

"And since nobody here has called for that, you're barking up the wrong tree, once again blinded by the CDS."

I did not attack the opinion of others here on my first comment, I made a comment about the election and about the defeated candidate, the only person who is attacking (me and other) defending Clinton here is you, my problem is about these attacks and false allegations, not with the other people.

"The point has always been that a) if a war were caused, it would be caused by Putin, not anyone in the US, b) the idea that Clinton's policies would cause a war with Russia is preposterous and is a result of irrational hatred."

The rest of the world thinks something else including the US itself, she helped to create civil war arming "moderate rebels" (jihadists) to overthrow Assad, as Syria is a kind of Russian warehouse, or a Russian route, Russia was involved in war. But there are many countries targeted around the world including mine.

"You're trying to change the topic from your claim that this was a rejection of Clinton to whether the system was accepted."

I am not changing anything, I am responding to your discomfort ("inquiry") above or this "questionnaire of judgment", "inquisition". But because of what? For a misinterpretation of yours defending Clinton due to Putin.

"Nobody claims that it wasn't accepted. But it being an outdated, undemocratic system makes it a poor indicator of whether this or that candidate was popularly rejected. IOW, Trump winning under this system is not the same as the people symbolically rejecting Clinton (which was your claim)."

American people can change it if they wanted, until this happened this is the system who elects the president.

But you ignored what I said above about this system. You argue that this system is not democratic, it's a opinion, I think the opposite, this system avoids that more populous states manipulate electoral result by having a weight well above than minor states, that's what occurs with Sao Paulo (State) in Brazil that has a much larger population and distorts the final result (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Brazil#Metropolitan_areas).

Sao Paulo alone has more voters than five or six more populous states together, and this causes distortion in the final result of the election (the same case of California in US) my vote is worth less than that of a "Paulista" ("Paulistas" = those born in state of Sao Paulo) with direct election. Obama won two straight elections in this same system and no one complained it. If there were such a system in Brazil the final electoral outcome might be more appropriate because this US system is more Federalist than one of "direct election". United States is a Federation, my country (for exemple) has Federation only in the name, we're not a "real Federation" (I'm federalist, this is the tradition of my home state unlike this bunch of weeping Paulistas complaining they were affected by the part of the country having voted in Lula and Dilma and not in their candidates).

"With 1.5 million (and counting) votes more than Trump the voters have not rejected Clinton. That's the point. Is it really so hard to understand?(There was her rejection by one particular group that stands out: the racist whites. "Choose your side carefully", one could say.)"

What happened was this:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Results_by_state

She had many votes in California (big State) and New York, this distorced the final result as I mentioned above. This system of direct election generates these distortions due to very populous states. The federal system tries to avoid this distortion by giving victory to what is most voted in most states.

"NYT does not say what you want it to say. Namely, it says nothing about Clinton sabotaging or liquidating Sanders' campaign. DNC officials privately mocking Sanders does not somehow erase the absolutely fair and crushing win by Hillary in the primaries by millions of votes. Once again you provide a link that is wholly irrelevant to the point you make. And claim not to have the CDS."

How about these?http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wikileaks-dnc-bernie-sanders_us_579381fbe4b02d5d5ed1d157https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/23/dnc-emails-wikileaks-hillary-bernie-sandershttp://nypost.com/2016/07/22/leaked-emails-show-how-democrats-screwed-sanders/

I know, it's all "propaganda" (lol). I thought you had a good memory about the electoral process, not a 'selective skepticism'. She needed his votes, so I don't know why this snobbery devalued his votes.

Sanders incarnated by the Democrat side the displeasure of the American voter, part of these people migrated to Trump. Trump did not win only with Republican votes.

"Maybe you should. Because you clearly did not understand what it said.As such, my point stands. You have an extremely distorted view of the primaries (not to mention of Clinton herself)."

I read it again and it really does not match what I want to show before, but look at the size of the "quiz". Just to answer a comment of yours I had to divide mine into three parts. Assuming that sources like the BBC, NY Times and others you call propaganda, it's very difficult to have a discussion here with these negatives trying to get me in contradiction or to show I do not know what I'm talking about.

It's easy to show Hillary is a disgrace, I don't have this impression of her because of this campaign as I said above, it has been since her husband's mandate (my aversion is with both, not just her). My aversion is about what her ideologically represents: radical neoliberalism, coups, Wall Street, etc.

"You claimed that Clinton liquidated, sabotaged and destroyed Sanders, whereas she did no such thing and Clinton's win was the will of the actual Democratic voters (notably, minorities) made after they heard both sides. DNC being pro-Clinton doesn't change anything."

Read the new links. My point is you should know this, this appeared a lot in the campaign, instead of simply denying and defending yourself in any way.

"Dude, when a criminal govt *already* uses violence on its people, elections aren't an immediate solution that is gonna stop the violence. That's such a naive and shortsighted view of things. He pushed violently, got a correspondingly violent pushback and escaped. Since he was no longer realistically able to perform his presidential duties, he was deposed and after a period of time there was a democratic election. Maybe not the most optimal solution overall, but there was no other in that particular situation."

The central problem here is you have a 'romantic' vision of democracy, if someone takes to the extreme what you defend, there would be no more government in the world, not even in democracies.

Did you think that violent? Don't need to understand the language to understand this video, it's a small example of political repression in São Paulo (which we call "Tucanistão" = Toucanistan, an irony with the symbol of the 'PSDB', a Toucan, PSDB has been ruling Sao Paulo since 1994, PSDB is the main Party of the coup, despite the acronym "social-democracy" in the name), and this is not an isolated fact, it occurs in several countries. I have seen violent repression of demonstrations in the United States in the 1960s, If the people retaliated that, there would be no more government standing. That's the reason why there's no overthrow of governments in many old democracies even though with repression, but the change of government is through voting (the revenge of the people comes through the vote).

The video (in the end appears Gerald Alckmin, PSDB is close to the Clintons since Bill Clinton, do you understand why I hate this couple?). The song was choiced because the title "Os alquimistas estão chegando" (The alchemists are coming), it rhymes with his surname (Alckmin, of Lebanese/Arab descent and possibly linked to the Spanish Catholic fanatic sect Opus Dei) "Estão chegando" ("are coming") indicates that they (Alckmin's Police) are coming (for beating), The Arab Republic of Sao Paulo, they must be missing Al-Andalus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Andalus):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZWhNvrxsD4

"*That* was the cause of the Ukrainian situation, not the mythical plans by wily Obama."

There's a conflict in the country, what I said is that external forces took advantage of the conflict (or even encouraged) to precipitate the fall of the pro-Russian government in Ukraine. The consequences of this are what we have seen, loss of Crimea, tension, civil war in other parts of Ukraine, etc.

If you really hate Putin should reflect on this 'strategy' of trying to corner him that Hillary/Obama have used, so far he has gotten bigger in the process than smaller. Putin is better seen in the world today than Obama, except for aligned media. It was for you to be more angry with her than me. This strategy of cornering Russia strengthened Putin's government. Putin must love Hillary, in truth.

"I am also aware of how many neo-Nazis and other neofascists there were (and are) on the Russian side of the conflict, starting with the likes of Strelkov, Gubarev, Milchakov, and the whole brigades of the Russian National Unity with their swastikas."

I said Putin is not a "Saint", I know there are neo-Nazis and ultranationalism in Russia, but these are used as "cannon fodder" by the Russian government, if they do something against the Russian government the former KGB gets rid of them.

"Not to mention that the very system Putin is building in Russia is neofascist (whether you define it as palingenetic ultranationalism (in its state, rather than ethnic form) or use Eco's 14 features, most of which apply, in one form or another, to Russia under Putin). That the puppet "republics" of LNR and DNR are little neofascist dictatorships requires no further comment."

Russia is an authoritarian state (with a problematic or incipient "democracy"), but I would not call it Fascism (this may turn out to be), but it's also a cultural trait of the country's political culture that lived under dictatorship (or authoritarian governments) for decades or centuries, a government like this, pressured, tends to harden even more against civilians internally for fear of external aggression or using it as a pretext to avoid any changes. This was my point when I criticized his position on preferring Clinton and a possible confrontation.

The USSR fell with Ronald Reagan, an actor (everyone laughed at him for it), who when approaching the Soviet chancellor of the time (Gorbachev) got more political changes than governments straining Russia. To get to open a very closed country like this (very closed and with fear of the world, in good part there are reasons for this fear as the aggression of the second war) the approach has more political consequences than the confrontation. Putin says he has celebrated Trump's victory, but this could cause him your fall if relations with the United States re-open, he will need another foreign enemy to divert attention from public opinion.

"You think this kind of a war wouldn't have any effect on the country's economy?"

What I said is that this war could have been avoided by voting and many lives spared, as Ukraine will have to find a way to live with the neighbor, regardless of liking Russia.

Leaving "idealism" away, the comparison I made proceeds (with US borders), if any country in the world interferes in any country bordering the US the same type of intervention that occurred in Ukraine will occur (as in Cuba and others, Guantánamo is in Cuba and the US are there), this is the real world, not the world I like or I want. These countries have found some way to "get along" with it, whether or not they like the US (for military, political and economic reasons).

"No, I'm a Russian (ask Nick, we've met personally several times). I just lived under Putin long enough to write what I do with full, fact-based conviction.(And currently I live outside of Russia, hence I actually *can* write what I do. I would think 10 times before writing the above if I were still there. You can very easily go to prison for this nowadays.)"

My question was due to small groups of Ukrainians (descendants) both in Brazil, as in Portugal and even in former Portuguese colonies in Africa (Mozambique or Angola), many of them hate Russians and worship fascists. There's a blog from a group of these people who loves Stepan Bandera and and such bullshit (by the way of writing they are born in Brazil, most of them focused on the state of Paraná (southern of Brazil), there's a certain transit of groups (with this ancestry or not) in Portuguese-speaking countries not very much exhibited in the media of these countries (mainly with the investments of Brazilian multinationals in these countries, before the destruction of 'Lava Jato' = "Car Wash Operation"). These descendants of Ukrainians are really fascists and hate Russians (regardless if you like Putin or not) . As the Russian and Ukrainian names/surnames are close, you could be Ukrainian (ascendance).

"Dude. It's like you're living under a rock. Wake up. Russia is a de facto dictatorship. The "elections" are sham both in that they're falsified, and in that 99% of TV is state-controlled and is pushing Putin 100% of the time, 110% during the elections. (And yes, TV absolutely dominates the informational field, even with the access to the internet - which is now censored anyway, to boot.) What can you change "democratically" in a non-democratic system? Could you "democratically" give Stalin a boot? Your understanding of Russia is on par with your understanding of Ukraine, I'm afraid."

I answered this further. You don't know Globe TV (Globo TV makes a North Korean state TV looks democratic). I was still born into a dictatorship and we still live under this dictatorship skeleton in my country. It's not only Russia has this kind of conflict. Any external interference will worsen this situation. Changes have to come from within, from the people, and this is only possible when there's a distension with Russis (look at the distension that occurred in the 1980s with the USSR). Any movement who leaves the Russian government stressed (and the country), benefits this situation that you cited (this whole tension benefited Putin, not the opposite).

"So far, your protestations notwithstanding, you have de facto defended Putin, which qualifies as a fascist apologia, and Trump, which is somewhere in the vicinity. Unlike you, I have not defended any fascists. I'm simply pushing back against your sliminig of decent people based on falsehoods and irrational hatred."

Why should I stand up for Putin? Do I have a reason for this? There were or there are a lot of people on the Brazilian Left who idolize Putin (but 'there are' a lot of people who "hurt" him after the coup because he did nothing against it, lol) and these people thinks he's a kind of "restaurateur" of USSR (lol) (these stupid people ridicules the Left of the country with their vast ignorance they demonstrate on these issues, and there's an idolatry about Cuba by these groups), I don't idolize anyone, and I have no reason to praise Putin because he did not move a straw about the coup here being a member of the BRICS. In fact, Brazil's strongest relationship in BRICS is with China (mainly economic), if Putin thinks he's a star of Brazil, it's just a confused impression, not ours (of the conscious part in the country). But in fact, there has never been any conflict between the two countries (Brazil and Russia), so there's no reason for Brazilians to be angry with Russia or vice versa, except for the country's ideological zealots seeing communism at all things.

In principle, my question about Clinton or Trump has nothing to do with Putin.

The "trust" is so great in the Russian government that even in the PT (Workers Party) governments there was no purchase of strategic materials from Russia to the armed forces (jet fighters, for example), fighters were bought from Sweden in consortium (an agreement, these planes will be of the two countries if this program survives to the coup government, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen#Brazil), Tanks came from Germany, the nuclear submarine is made with France (partnership), all other parts are national technology development, including Ukraine gave us a default on the issue with satellites.

There would be more considerations on these questions as Brazil to have the capacity to make the atomic bomb and the media does not usually comment on this (this question also has to do with the coup, many people are unaware of this fact and the history behind it), but I believe I answered what was possible from the above questionnaires, this takes time.

I think I have demonstrated otherwise with your own quotes. (This part can be found by searching for "Just a few quotes" above).

And what happened with "I will no longer discuss this"?

So much for keeping your word.

> but you have a syndrome about Putin and all people you think who 'supports' him

Oh my, I guess I also have a syndrome against Hitler. Shame on me for not liking dictators!

> If I hated her as you say

If calling her a "madwoman", a "psychopath", a probable cause for the WWIII and accusing her of many things she's innocent of is not "hating", I'd hate to see what it looks like when you really "hate" someone.

> Let me show again:> 400,000 people dead are 'something'

Again, you throw some links and words around but seem to be satisfied with innuendo. Once again, how is the Clinton family responsible for these 400000 dead?Where is the role of Assad, who suppressed the Arab spring protests fueling the rebellion in the very first place? Why is he not to blame?And note that the government simply putting down the unrest" argument doesn't work in case of dictators, who are not legitimate by def.Where is the role of Putin who, by supporting Assad, prolonged this war?I mean, I would even understand the wishy-washy position that Clinton shares the blame for this mess like the numerous parties to this conflict do. This would sort of ignore the fact that sometimes there are no good choices, and when there's a choice between a dictator slaughtering people rebelling against him and arming these people, thus also risking arming the bad guys among them, you're in deep shit either way.A bit like saying "the US were responsible for the millions of the WWII dead, they not only took part in the war but helped murderous Stalin with the Lend-Lease!", but OK, I can at least see where this perspective is coming from.But you seem intent on putting *all* the blame on her. But you don't "hate" her, yeah.

> She should not have run in this election but rather respond for crimes against humanity in the court of The Hague.

But you don't "hate" her LOL.

> Clinton is ('was', she lost the election, lol) part of the Coup, that's the main trouble between her and me

Something you have failed to show any evidence for

> this has nothing to do with Putin, my mind doesn't spin around the belly button of the president of Russia, you don't even know what I think of Putin to make these questions.

Sorry, but your twisting of facts on Ukraine was exactly what Putin's propagandists usually repeat.

> I'm not a Putin fan, admitting that nuclear wars (or even conventional warfare) are dangerous with a warmonger like Clinton doesn't make me a fan of him either.

Except you're reversing the whole picture. To repeat: if any war were to start (which probably wouldn't happen), it's because *Putin* is a warmonger who would make the first step, not Clinton. It's Putin's media that threaten to turn the US into radioactive dust, not vice versa.There's a lot of room between appeasing someone (like Trump is intent on doing) and starting a war against them. Obama, for example, has not started a war with Putin, and neither has he appeased him. There are various tools of inluence other than weapons.Clinton, not being a warmonger, actually tried the policy of a peaceful "Reload" with Russia. Guess who shit on all that. Not the US. The anti-Western propaganda began anew under Putin long before even the Ukrainian events. Ukraine was an icing on the cake.You know why? Because the neofascist wing of the elites (look up Rogozin for starters) basically won over the "moderate useful idiot" wing represented by Medvedev. Putin made his choice.

If at first this might have been a misunderstanding on your part, after I have corrected you in my previous series of comments, this could qualify as a lie.

> Labeling everything for "conspiracy theory" does not help much in this kind of discussion

I asked for a source of your claim about the coup. You have admitted that you have none. This makes your claim a conspiracy theory. As simple as that.

> and you don't admit any criticism of her disqualifing any article placed (from the NY Times, BBC and others)

Um, no. I'm pointing out that you have either misunderstood or twisted these articles.Your posting a link to NYT does not automatically mean that the article supports the point you are making.

> A Pulitzer Winner is 'nothing' (hehehe),

That argument is about as convincing as me "refuting" you on Obama by pointing out that he's a Nobel Prize winner.Here's the thing: you tried an argument from authority. Which is nice when our "authorities" coincide.But, as I pointed out, for me Greenwald is anything but. Sure, just an opinion, but so is yours. So try something else.

> it's the first time I see a Clinton supporter so fanatic

I respect Clinton and think she's a decent person (as far as politicians go; on average, all of them lie and compromise more than average folks - that's the nature of politics).Otherwise, I have a balanced view of her, including her flaws. I pretty much hated her in 2008, for what it's worth (albeit that was not anywhere near your unhinged hatred towards her.)Since you have a Clinton Derangement Syndrome, as you have proven time and again, my overall balanced but also somewhat favorable position towards Clinton (e.g. not agreeing with you that she's a genocidal psychopath or that she "liquidated" Sanders, both of which are verifiably untrue) is seen by you as fanaticism.

> More people thought of the same title: "Alien vs. Predator"

Sure, I'm aware there are lots of unhinged folks out there (like the people who run the site you linked to).

> Clinton fanaticism and warmongering, destroying everything to achieve any goal, could lead to a nuclear war with Russia,

You make crazy, unhinged, fact-free claims like this, but you don't hate her, ROTFL.

> It's not a false accusation because she hadn't denied it when it would be simple to prove this is false.

LOLWUT, that's your level of "reasoning"? Hahaha. Instead of providing any actual evidence of your wild claims about Clinton sabotaging, liquidating and destroying Sanders, all you have is this?Here's the truth: there were some mocking and inappropriate emails among the DNC staffers. DWS was properly given a boot when this became known.There is zero evidence Clinton knew about these comments. Whatever the DNC staffers' personal opinion of Sanders does not change the fact that Clinton won in a fair and *clean* battle by millions of votes. The Democratic voters, overwhelming number of minority voters among them, decided for her.

> She's a Psychopathy and Genocidal.> I have no syndrome about Clinton,

Need I say more?

> conviction is not a syndrome, but you've got syndrome about Putin

Oh yeah, if you have it, it's "conviction", if I have it, it's "syndrome". Nice double standard there!Difference though, there's nothing wrong with not liking a neofascist dictator. In fact, every decent, adult, sane, informed person at least dislikes Putin.Now, if the reasons were right, it would be right to hate Clinton. Problem is, all the reasons you have listed turned out to be bullshit upon checking.

Sure. You're saying it like hating a neofascist dictator is something shameful and to be hidden.In fact, it is shameful to like the likes of Putin and/or to regurgitate their propaganda.

Now, there's a difference between hating someone for their deeds and being deranged about them.The latter involves making false claims or grand conspiracy claims barely supported by evidence.I can easily show that my well-deserved hatred of Putin does not devolve into blindness about him on the basis two examples:

1. Among the critics of Putin you will often meet a conspiracy theory about him having been involved in the apartment bombings in 1999.There are whole books about it, one of the authors was Litvinenko. I've studied the claims and don't find them convincing in the least.Had I had the Putin derangment syndrome, I would have swallowed them (like for example Paul Gregory did).

2. The usual meme in the West is that Putin kills his political opponents and opposition journalists.While it is true that he is responsible for the political atmosphere in which these killings happen, and it is true that he is indirectly responsible for some of them by creating the monsters like Ramzan Kadyrov, there's of yet not a single proven case where I would suspect Putin of giving such a killing order, with the exception of Litvinenko, who, however, having been a former Russian agent and basically a turncoat, was a special case, not in the same category as, say, Politkovskaya or Nemtsov.Had I had the PDS, I would have screamed about Putin killing this or that person. Won't happen until there is clear evidence. Which is present in the case of the invasion into Ukraine.

I have come to call Putin a fascist too (in the Mussolini sense), slowly, at that. I will happily defend that label on the basis of the more scholarly (palingenetic ultranationalism) and less scholarly (Eco) definitions.That is not a mere insult, although I understand not everyone will find my reasons sufficient (and that's OK, definitions can be vague). I've never called Trump a fascist or a Nazi, for example, even though you will see a bunch of American liberals doing just that (I did call him a proto-fascist based on his pronouncements; that "proto" part means he might or might not turn out to be one; his opportunism shows that it's less likely now). Speaking of Trump, my hatred of him - which is only in a small part based on his appeasement of Putin - also doesn't lead to blindness, which led to some sad results among liberals.E.g. I was the one to expose the hoax claim about Trump's "250 Russian businesses", promoted by the hack Scott Dworkin.

You on the other hand seem to swallow a lot of claims about Clinton that are simply not supported by evidence.

> you consider who doesn't like Clinton is defending Putin

No, I consider someone who repeats false information propagated by Putin's media as de facto defending Putin (even if they hedge their bet with "well, I don't like Putin, and he shouldn't have done this, but...").

> Putin didn't start the war in Ukraine,

Actually he did, purely formally, by engaging his troops on the Ukrainian territory, and the first act of the said war was the annexation of Crimea.What followed was a continuation of this first act of war. (There's a reason why no *formal* war was declared. That doesn't change the fact of who made the first move, provoked or not.)

> the morons supported by the American government (Obama) provoked it ignoring the military power of the neighbor

"She shouldn't have wore that mini-skirt, has only herself to blame that she got raped".

> What it's funnier in this "discussion" is that your candidate was the one who gave to Putin more power, if you hate him so much you should hate her for it.

> In the reign of H. Clinton and Obama, Putin acquired more power in Russia using the idea of the "external enemy"

Correct, but it has nothing to do with Clinton or Obama. Indeed, if such were the case, Putin would have prayed for a Clinton presidency to further entrench his power.That is, while the propaganda does need an external enemy, Putin doesn't need a *real* one.And the external enemy is defined in propaganda not by, say, NATO participation (Turkey, whose Erdogan is once again Putin's BFF, is a NATO member) but by the "values".Hence all the theocracy-based measures (anti-blasphemy, anti-gay laws etc.) as a "bulwark" against the "decaying West".Hence all the financial and moral support of the far-far-right (and sometimes also far-left, though on a lesser scale, and only for anti-American/anti-EU sentiments) parties all around Europe. Because they're kindred souls battling against the hidden globalist conspiracy of the forces of moral decay, etc.In this worldview a new neighbor country becoming a NATO member is significant in relation to, and is even eclipsed by, say, the SCOTUS decision on the same-sex marriage.If, on the other hand, this is the NATO of the Trumps, LePens, Wilderses and Erdogans of this world, it will soon become a force for "good". Putin may even join it.

> Of course, the only thing you have done so far has been to deny and make empty accusations, "everything is propaganda" (as NY Times, BBC, Intercept etc).

No, I've pointed out in detail that the links you have posted do not actually support the claims you are making.

>>> but this hatred can not blind a person to the point of defending unconditionally a genocidal hoping her to go to war against Russia to overthrow the "Evil Fascist Dictator" as in the Second World War

>> "And since nobody here has called for that, you're barking up the wrong tree, once again blinded by the CDS."

> I did not attack the opinion of others here on my first comment,

And you have missed the point again, although that was your chance to correct your false claim.Once again: nobody here has supported a war with Putin. Your claim stating otherwise was false.But indeed, in this new series of postings you have in fact reiterated this false claim (searchable by "You want to attack him anyway").

> The rest of the world thinks something else

... is not an "argument" in a discussion.

> I am not changing anything,

Actually you did.

Here is the sequence:

1. You: "Trump was elected upon the american people rejection to her and her husband"

You obviously meant something more than "she lost", since this is already implied by "Trump was elected". So you must have meant a symbolic popular rejection to have made any sense.

2. Me: "Actually more than one million voted for her over Trump. Only the outdated undemocratic system prevented Clinton's win. "

Already more than two million BTW. The point being, the indicator of the acceptance or the rejection is the popular vote, not the electoral college. An admittedly imperfect indicator too, due to voter suppression efforts by the Republicans, but still.The American voters rejected Trump. He still won due to an outdated, undemocratic system.I was *not* claiming that the system is not lawful or that the rules should have been changed in the middle of the game.

3. You: "She and the Democrats accepted this voting system. If this is undemocratic why did they accept it? They can modify it instead of complaining, if they had won there would be no people saying it."

That is you shifted from your initial point to whether or not the Dems accepted the system. But whether or not they accepted the system has nothing to do with the fact that this system is not an indicator of popular acceptance or rejection. It is only an indicator of who will be the president. Which, in the electoral college system, are two very different things. Which is exactly why I said that the system was outdated and undemocratic in the first place.

4. Me: "You're trying to change the topic from your claim that this was a rejection of Clinton to whether the system was accepted."

5. You: "I am not changing anything".

So you tried to pull a fast one here. Didn't work! Heh.

> American people can change it if they wanted, until this happened this is the system who elects the president.

Apples, oranges. Nobody claims that it doesn't.

> You argue that this system is not democratic

That was a side note. One can achieve a democratic result also under this system, when the popular and the EV votes coincide. Which is most of the time. But that it has already led to two catastrophic debacles (Bush, Trump) shows the system is in a need of a reform.All that is an aside. The point is: only the popular vote is an indicator of an acceptance or a rejection.

> it's a opinion, I think the opposite, this system avoids that more populous states manipulate electoral result by having a weight well above than minor states

I happen to have this egalitarian notion that one vote should weigh as much as the other, and that if a person received 2 million votes more than their opponent, they should win. I don't see how people from smaller states having their votes weigh more is more democratic rather than less.And BTW, you're free to disagree with this, but this would only be a dispute over the label "democratic". Since democracy is a spectrum, not a black-and-white issue, there's a place for an opinion like yours. After all, despite such a fucked-up system, the US is still a democracy.But the initial point was not about democracy per se. It was about whether who wins the presidency is the same as the popular acceptance or rejection.Even if we agree that the EC is fully democratic (which we won't), it merely makes it a democratic system that is nevertheless not a good indicator of whether the losing candidate was rejected by the electorate. Stomping one's feet and chanting "but she lost!" is not going to change this and is thus missing the point.

> Obama won two straight elections in this same system and no one complained it.

Because in both cases the EV coincided with the PV.

Next, you try to support your false claim about Clinton sabotaging, liquidating and destroying Sanders by throwing a few links at me:

A disparaging email from a DNC official (not from Clinton or anyone in her campaign) is quoted (with the target being disputed), but there is no evidence that the proposal in the email has ever been implemented.Another email quoted from the later stage of the primaries, about a Bernie narrative (again, not from Clinton or anyone in her campaign). Which, surprise surprise, seems to be based on facts. Moreover, it was written already after Bernie went negative against the DNC. I agree that the DNC should have stayed neutral internally anyway, despite Bernie's provocations etc.

What the article doesn't contain:1. Any indication of Hillary Clinton sabotaging, liquidating and destroying Sanders.2. Any indication that the Democratic voters' choice in the primaries was not fair, whether DNC was neutral or not.

The notoriously wingnut NYP, that of course tried to weaken Clinton with their spin, quotes the same two emails.

Conclusion: the Dem voters heard both sides and decided for Clinton with an overwhelming margin.

So you see, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

Your links show zero Clinton "sabotaging" (etc.) Sanders. They show DNC not being neutral, *but it wasn't the DNC that elected Clinton* in the first place.I've given you two chances to provide evidence for your claims about C v S, and all you've managed is links that are utterly irrelevant.Then you turn around and claim that I dismiss your links as propaganda, whereas I dismiss *your use* of these links to support your claims. It's just dishonest.Not to mention condescending, because you apparently assume I've never read all of this before. In fact, I have, and that's exactly why I claim that Clinton won fair, square and cleanly.

> It's not, but there are so many absurd accusations sometimes it's better to laugh than to respond.

Except of course Clinton's campaign *is* one of the cleanest in my memory. For fairness' sake, I think her campaign against Obama was pretty dirty (which is why she lost).You have already demonstrated your inability to prove otherwise.

> She hasn't attacked more because she's needed his votes

Even if so. The fact is, she hasn't gone dirty on Sanders.

> Let's see some polls

Oh please, because polls turned out to be so accurate this season.Not to mention that these polls have absolutely no meaning whatsoever because they were not taken after the Republicans threw the kitchen sink at him (acc. to the plans described by Eichenwald). (And they didn't because he lost by about 3 million votes to the dreaded Clinton who didn't use any of those tricks, LOL.)Anyone claiming that Bernie would have certainly (or even probably) won is full of shit. The only rational answer is: we don't know.

> It's easy to show Hillary is a disgrace,

You've written tens of thousands of characters in this thread and haven't made a single step in that direction. Shows how "easy" it is.

> Assuming that sources like the BBC, NY Times and others you call propaganda,

Dishonesty again. I have not called *them* propaganda. I have called the claims *you* repeat propaganda. The claims that you make do not equal what BBC or NYT report.I remember neither BBC, nor NYT alleging that there was anything wrong with the Clinton win.

> it's very difficult to have a discussion here with these negatives trying to get me in contradiction or to show I do not know what I'm talking about.

Oh, haha, imagine my situation.

> Read the new links. My point is you should know this,

I do know this. Which is exactly why I call bullshit on your claims.

> The central problem here is you have a 'romantic' vision of democracy

Um, I rather think you do.

> it's a small example of political repression in São Paulo

Since I don't pretend to understand what is happening in Brazil (which is why I asked *you* to provide evidence about Clinton and the coup, which you failed to do), I can't comment on that.I comment on things that I do understand. What's happening in Russia and in Ukraine is something I do understand.

> I have seen violent repression of demonstrations in the United States in the 1960s, If the people retaliated that, there would be no more government standing.

Except what was applicable 50-70 years ago no longer applies. For example, segregation back then did not lead to the demise of the US. An attempt to establish segregation today - would. In fact, it would lead to a revolution.

> That's the reason why there's no overthrow of governments in many old democracies even though with repression, but the change of government is through voting (the revenge of the people comes through the vote).

It happens differently, and when a revolution that doesn't lead to a dictatorship (like e.g. in Cuba) happens because of this, I sure won't blame the people.

In any case, whether you approve or not, it has nothing to do with Putin's war and his appeasement by Trump.

> There's a conflict in the country, what I said is that external forces took advantage of the conflict (or even encouraged) to precipitate the fall of the pro-Russian government in Ukraine.

Yeah, there were external forces on both sides. Seems like only one side is bothering you. It doesn't matter though: Ukraine is an indepedent state and can choose its affiliations freely. It has never been and never will be an excuse to lead a war against it or to annex its territory.

> civil war in other parts of Ukraine, etc.

Oh please, "civil war". First with thousands of "volunteers" from Russia (with Strelkov, Russian citizen, at the helm), then with the actual Russian army, and with various separatists complaining in the intercepted conversations that the locals don't want to fight. "Civil war". Continue to consume this bullshit.

> Putin must love Hillary, in truth.

That's why he supported her during the election. /sarc

> To get to open a very closed country like this (very closed and with fear of the world, in good part there are reasons for this fear as the aggression of the second war) the approach has more political consequences than the confrontation.

You apparently have no idea that in the 1990s Russia was pretty open.

> What I said is that this war could have been avoided by voting and many lives spared, as Ukraine will have to find a way to live with the neighbor, regardless of liking Russia.

The war could have been avoided by Putin not starting it, how about that.

> My question was due to small groups of Ukrainians (descendants) both in Brazil, as in Portugal and even in former Portuguese colonies in Africa (Mozambique or Angola), many of them hate Russians and worship fascists.

I'm well aware of such folks. I have about as much respect for them as for other ultranationalists.